MOKAU JONES CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10710, 2 November 1912, Page 5

MOKAU JONES CASE.

j JOINT COMMITTEE'S -REPORT. ® j PAYMENT OF. ,13000 R-EOOM--0 1 MENDED. I | (By Teleeracu —P-:yi .Lsmwjation.) e j - ! WELLINGTON. U>i Night, " j In tho legislative Council this afternoon, the Joint Committee of both branches of the Legislature ap- _ pointed to inquire into "the petition 0 of Joshua Jones, one time of Mokau, h presented its report. The report is a | very long document, and was read, !- ' when presented in the Legislative !' Council by the Hon J. Rigg, by the ■ Clork. j The Hon H. D. Bel! raised the R point as to whether the document 1 should be read in full. s j In reply, the Hon J. Rigg, Chair- - man of the Joint Committee, said the Committo had put on record a concise history of the case and then m.ulo a I recommendation. It was necessary, for the Council to understand the case, that the whole thing should' be 1, f read. The effect of the report, he . held, would be to say the last word - that could be said on a subject that ■ ( hod occupied the attention of the Le- ' gidatiire for years past. There would bo no necessity for any further in- > quiry on tho "part of the Government, ! and in view of the extreme importance „ of the report, it should -be read. The report was then rend, and ordered to lie on the table. She order of reference submitted to the committee was to inquire whether the petitioner has suffered the loss of any right conferred upon' him by the State by reason of any amendment made to the law by the Government, j After detailing in a very clear fashion the history of the negotiations, and the law transactions, the report says that the private Acts granted tho petitioners in 1880 and 188S were ' the' Statutes Repeal Act, 1907, during the absence of the petitioner from the colony, and without his knowledge and consent. By this repeal, tho petitioner was deprived of a pre-emptive right to acquire a lease or leases of some 1500 to 2000 acres of Molcau lands not included in that portion of the land which has been the subject of litigation. The Committee was of opinion that this was the only loss of right which the petitioner had suffered by reason of any amendment of the statute law. Tho Committee therefore recommended ! that a sum of £3OOO be paid the, petitioner, and that the Government take ( upon itself the- responsibility of lodging any such sum V.with the Public Trustee, in trust for'.tho use . a.ntf TTenefit of petitioner, his wife, and family. It was recommended that this amount be paid to the petitioner j in compensation for loss of the right f mentioned, and as an ex patria payment in consideration of the fact that by reason of a certain course of events ( tho petitioner had not in fact received , the reward which it was originally intended that he should receive in re- , turn for very .considerable services rendered by him in bringing about peace with the Maoris in the King 3 Country. The Committee recommended that if such ■ payment is made to tho petitioner, it should be made subject to an'express provision that it is in full satisfaction of all and every cl.ahn (if any) which the petitioner may have against the general of New Zealand. The petitioner claimed that an Order-in- 1 Councils issued in 1007 had enabled 1 executors ofWickham Flower to ac-j 1 .quire 'the freehold of land which the i petitioner held a leasehold tenure. Ononis point the Committee held that 1 since the petitioner had, prior to any sWh action, lost all legal claim to the said leases, he had not been prejudiced ,by the Government's action. The pe- 1 I titioner also asked that the GovernI ment should give him a right of acition, by special Statute, in order to ena.ble him to prosecute a case here j in which the Full Court had held lie had no power. This the Committee recommended should not be granted, !>eeauso the.petitioner had riot yet exhausted his legal remedies.